That isn’t to say that there wasn’t plenty of public jabber about it, much of it wrong, according to Peter Gleick, who heads the Oakland-based Pacific Institute. Gleick is a hydrologist and one of the more outspoken science figures on Western water and climate issues. As a countermeasure against what he calls climate “disinformation,” Gleick and some colleagues have started handing out yearly Climate B.S. (Bad Science) Awards. In so doing, Gleick doesn’t spare the media itself. His list of 2011 “winners” came out today (gratefully we’re not on it). The following are Gleick’s words. Some of the links are mine. May I have the envelope, please:

THE WINNER OF THE 2011 CLIMATE B.S.* OF THE YEAR AWARDS IS:

All of the Republican candidates for PresidentBeing anti-science in general, and anti-climate science in particular, seems a requirement for nomination to lead the Republican Party. Not a single one of the Republican candidates for President has a position on climate change that is consistent with the actual science accepted by 97-98% of all climate scientists and every national academy of sciences on the planet. The choice among the current Republican candidates on the issue of climate change is scientific ignorance, distain for science, blatant misrepresentation of facts, or naked political expediency, any one of which would make the individual candidates strong contenders for the 2011 Climate B.S. Award. Combined? The group wins the 2011 Award hands down.

Second Place: Disinformation from Fox News and Murdoch’s News CorporationFox News moves up from their fifth place finish last year, joined by the entire News Corporation empire of Rupert Murdoch because of its apparent efforts to synchronize anti-climate science reporting among the different Murdoch outlets in the UK, the U.S., and Australia.

Third Place: Spencer, Braswell, and ChristyThird place goes to Roy Spencer and William (Danny) Braswell for a debunked research paper on climate sensitivity, and John Christy, for an astounding piece of misleading testimony at a Congressional climate change hearing.

Fourth Place: The Koch Brothers for funding the promotion of bad climate scienceFourth place goes to fossil-fuel billionaires Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, Inc., who provide substantial funding to groups and politicians who deny the science of climate change. The Koch brothers fund a veritable Who’s Who of groups that put out misleading science or tout bad science on climate change as an intentional strategy.

Fifth Place: Anthony Watts for his BEST hypocrisyAnti-climate-science blogger Anthony Watts said he would accept the results of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature or “BEST” study, even if it proved him wrong. Unfortunately for him, the study showed that the Earth’s surface is warming and at just the rate that numerous previous studies had shown – but he reneged and attacked the paper and the science.

Runners-Up in 2011 included:Harrison Schmitt and the Heartland Institute for “Arcticgate” (documented errors in denying disappearance of Arctic sea ice); Rush Limbaugh for his consistent falsehoods about climate science; and Steve McIntyre for his smear of climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State University.

More than a decade's worth of climate coverage trends, as tracked by the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research in Boulder, CO.

Gleick sharpened his teeth a bit for this year’s round. Last year, all but one of his first awards went to a series of commonly repeated “false and misleading climate science claims,” whereas this time around Gleick and his nomination team (which includes more than a dozen prominent climate scientists) took aim more directly at individuals and organizations. Reflecting the general trend in polemics these days, I guess the volume is being turned up.

About the author

Craig is KQED's science editor, specializing in weather, climate, water & energy issues, with a little seismology thrown in just to shake things up. Prior to his current position, he launched and led the station's award-winning multimedia project, Climate Watch. Craig is also an accomplished writer/producer of television documentaries, with a focus on natural resource issues. View all posts by Craig Miller →

MORE POSTS ABOUT

Move forms California’s largest science & environmental unit for electronic media After four years, numerous awards, and something just shy of 900 blog posts, the multimedia reporting effort that’s been known as Climate Watch is turning a significant page. KQED … Read More

But returning to “Hollywood” showers will just make things worse You installed a low-flow toilet. You take fast showers. Your yard is water-wise and drought-tolerant. And even if everyone in California were just like you, which they’re not — yet … Read More

The Heartland Institute cries foul as Gleick is invited back to work The announcement that Peter Gleick has been reinstated as president of the Pacific Institute was met with an outcry from the Heartland Institute, which has vowed to press … Read More

Newer Post

Older Post

I notice the spike in 2009, thats got to be due to Climategate. History will show that one of the greatest single acts of defiance which saved humanity from centuries of socialist tyranny will be Climategate. Mark my words.

Anonymous

This debate is now between the manufactured “science” of the climate denial industry and the actual bottom line of the insurance industry.http://goo.gl/fb/EywNN

Russell Steele

Is this the same Dr Gleick that writes nasty book reviews before he actually reads the book? Is this same Dr Gleick that truncate sea level data to 2000 when data is available through 2008, but from 2000 to 2008 the data he truncated showed sea level decline. I think he called this “cherry picking” when other do it, what does Dr Gleick call when he does it?

As I recall the BEST Study was published with out peer review and then presented to Congress as finished work. According to the warmers like Dr Gleick the only valid science in peer reviewed science and the the BEST Study was not peer reviewed. As I recall Muller presented his finding to Congress over the objections of Mr Watts. So some how Watts becomes the villain here.

Juliejones10

Again and again, I send comments to this site and try, try to share the importance of investigating the whole weather modification, chem trails, solar radiation management issue and those planes flyiing up there dispersing aerosols in long grid lines. I do not see any mention of this horrifying program in the general media… a few have covered. Just go to YouTube Chem trails and you will see thousands of photos from around the world. SEEing is believing — who authorizes, who pays, who suffers the consequences… We might want to check out black budgets, commodities futures, DOD, CIA, HAARP, chemical, air and oil industries…lots of secrets out there. Stay tuned!!! http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org
and http://www.californiaskywatch.com for some facts you probably missed!!!

John Peate

Do only idiots comment on your reports. I thought the Bay area of the USA would be a little more enlightened and informed about the reality of dangerous climate change.

We’ve Moved!

About Climate Watch

Climate Watch is KQED's multi-year initiative to provide in-depth coverage of climate-related science and policy issues, with a specific focus on California. More …

Water and Power

Think water and electricity don't mix? Here in California, we wouldn't have one without the other. Now climate change is threatening to alter our water supply, and the impact could show up in your electric bill. Explore the series.